Daily Message

"Unless we work hard to keep our religious liberty, we'll lose this
cherished freedom. It is already happening in other parts of the developed
world. We need to be aware of this and do everything we can to prevent
these types of attacks on our freedom to live our faith."

We are writing to state our
strong opposition to the misnamed "Protect Women's Health From Corporate
Interference Act of 2014" (S. 2578). Though cast as a response to the Supreme Court's
narrow decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the bill ranges far
beyond that decision, potentially attacking all existing federal
protections of conscience and religious freedom regarding health coverage
mandates.

As a broad, interfaith
coalition of religious leaders recently explained: "Congress has never passed
legislation with the specific purpose of reducing Americans' religious
freedom. It should not consider doing so now." That is especially true of this
bill, which:

Curtails
RFRA, despite claims to the contrary.
Although one of the findings in the bill claims that it is "consistent with the
Congressional intent in enacting the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of
1993" (RFRA), in fact the bill's operative provisions explicitly forbid application
of RFRA whenever the federal government wishes to override the religious
freedom rights of Americans regarding health coverage.

Applies
to other federal conscience protections, not just RFRA. Although the bill singles out RFRA by name, the bill
also appears to override "any other provision of Federal law" that protects
religious freedom or rights of conscience regarding health coverage mandates.
These protections could include, among others, longstanding conscience clauses
on abortion, such as the Hyde-Weldon amendment. The bill expressly leaves in
place only the HHS mandate's own insufficiently narrow exemption for "houses of
worship" and its contested "accommodation" for religious nonprofit
organizations.

Applies
to all present and future coverage mandates, not just contraception. The bill's rollback of federal conscience protection
applies not just to contraceptives, but to any "specific health care
item or service" that is mandated by any federal law or regulation. If,
in the future, the executive branch chose to add the abortion pill RU-486, or
even elective surgical abortion, including late-term abortion, to the list of
"preventive services," those who object to providing or purchasing such
coverage would appear to have no recourse under RFRA or "any other provision of
Federal law" that may have protected against this mandate. Existing conscience
protection against the federal "essential health benefits" mandate, still being
defined state-by-state, could be jeopardized as well.

Applies to all employers,
not just closely held for-profits.
Although the Hobby Lobby decision covered only closely held corporations, this
bill covers "employers" without limitation—nonprofit or for-profit, publicly
held and closely held, even sole proprietors. Again, all that remains are the
inadequate exemption and "accommodation," which protect only against mandated
contraceptive coverage and remain subject to further restriction by the
executive branch.

Applies
to employees, their minor dependents, and other stakeholders, not just
employers. By its terms
the bill denies religious freedom rights not only to employers, but also to
employees, employee organizations, and insurers. Accordingly, a mother who
objects to her group health plan's federally mandated coverage of, for example,
sterilization or abortifacient drugs for her minor daughter, would have no
recourse in federal law, as her objection would deny that "benefit" to her
"covered dependent" who is "entitled" to it by the terms of this Act.

Entrenches
bad regulations by statute. The bill allows modifications to the mandate
and its exemption and "accommodation," but only those "consistent with the
purpose and findings of this Act." That is, the executive branch would appear
to be free to reduce or eliminate the exemption or "accommodation," but
forbidden to expand the exemption or otherwise make changes that might reduce
the scope of mandated coverage.

Further encourages employers to drop
coverage. Reducing the
scope of religious freedom protection will especially impact employers who now
gladly provide generous coverage, but object in conscience to a "specific
health care item or service," pressuring them to simply drop coverage and
attempt to endure the far smaller financial penalty for offering no health care
at all.

In short, the bill does not befit a nation committed to
religious liberty. Indeed, if it were to pass, it would call that commitment
into question. Nor does it show a genuine commitment to expanded health
coverage, as it would pressure many Americans of faith to stop providing or
purchasing health coverage altogether. We oppose the bill and urge you to
reject it.

Sincerely
yours,

Most Reverend William E.
Lori
Archbishop of Baltimore
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Cast as a response to the Supreme Court's narrow decision in
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, S. 2578 actually ranges far beyond that decision,
potentially attacking all federal laws protecting conscience rights. Its
passage would mark the first time in history that Congress has acted
specifically to reduce Americans' religious freedom. Learn more from the S.2578 Backgrounder - July 15, 2014

By accepting this message, you will be leaving the website of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This link is provided
solely for the user's convenience. By providing this link, the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops assumes no responsibility for,
nor does it necessarily endorse, the website, its content, or
sponsoring organizations.